Vaneshi:"This video contains material from Scrips Local News, which has blocked it for Copyright reasons."

I second the motion to "End this shiat now"

now there is an actual good argument that the DMCA process is trash. It's the video auto-detection that makes "Scripps" think they own everything including NASA footage, just because they used the same footage.

The case in the article is more like, someone didn't pay their cable bill so the cable guy disconnected them and OOPS, disconnected the whole city block for an hour before the mistake was fixed.

Christian Bale:The case in the article is more like, someone didn't pay their cable bill so the cable guy disconnected them and OOPS, disconnected the whole city block for an hour before the mistake was fixed.

HotWingConspiracy:Christian Bale: The case in the article is more like, someone didn't pay their cable bill so the cable guy disconnected them and OOPS, disconnected the whole city block for an hour before the mistake was fixed.

Guy should be fired.

Yeah, if I were Edublogs I would change hosts. Of course, that process might result in more than an hour of downtime and the new host might have the same kind of idiots working for them anyway.

tomcatadam:10k, stacking, per erroneous takedown request. On top of paying all fees associated with fighting it in court.How about that?

How about we just hang the bastard that orders the erroneous takedown? It will only take a few hangings before the rest get their shiat together, In the meantime there are a few fewer useless twits out there ruining it for the rest of us.

The DMCA Notice that would have been here telling you that the original content has been removed for a DMCA violation has been itself removed due to a DMCA violation. This notice shall remain unless further violations are discovered.

DigitalCoffee:The DMCA Notice that would have been here telling you that the original content has been removed for a DMCA violation has been itself removed due to a DMCA violation. This notice shall remain unless further violations are discovered.

Smeggy Smurf:tomcatadam: 10k, stacking, per erroneous takedown request. On top of paying all fees associated with fighting it in court.How about that?

How about we just hang the bastard that orders the erroneous takedown? It will only take a few hangings before the rest get their shiat together, In the meantime there are a few fewer useless twits out there ruining it for the rest of us.

Let's go one step further and hang the bastard who accused the copyright holder of ordering an erroneous takedown when they didn't. You know, as long as we're hanging bastards and all.

Smeggy Smurf:tomcatadam: 10k, stacking, per erroneous takedown request. On top of paying all fees associated with fighting it in court.How about that?

How about we just hang the bastard that orders the erroneous takedown? It will only take a few hangings before the rest get their shiat together, In the meantime there are a few fewer useless twits out there ruining it for the rest of us.

DMCA notices are already supposed to be done "under penalty of perjury", but I can't think of any cases off the top of my head where the perjury case has gone to court.

Manfred J. Hattan:Smeggy Smurf: tomcatadam: 10k, stacking, per erroneous takedown request. On top of paying all fees associated with fighting it in court.How about that?

How about we just hang the bastard that orders the erroneous takedown? It will only take a few hangings before the rest get their shiat together, In the meantime there are a few fewer useless twits out there ruining it for the rest of us.

Let's go one step further and hang the bastard who accused the copyright holder of ordering an erroneous takedown when they didn't. You know, as long as we're hanging bastards and all.

No because the mere accusation does not cause harm to life, liberty or property through fraud or force. It can be the result of a simple misunderstanding. The takedown itself did effect property i.e.the blogs and and revenue from advertising. That was done through fraud (willful failure to maintain your promise to act by the contract you agreed to) and thus as far as I'm concerned subject to the hanging.

All that they needed to do was verify the complaint was legitimate and then take action. But no, they just went and did it because fark you that's why. So we hang them. The next guy that gets a takedown request will see the other guy didn't verify it and was hung so he'll make damned sure that it's legit or he'll hang as well. Problem solved. We only had to kill one asshole to save a whole lot more.

If this was applied everywhere the problems through assholes lying and bullshiat business practices would come to a screeching halt in a big farking hurry. Sure some will leave the US. Fark them, they can go be assholes elsewhere.

I've been wondering why people don't start issuing DMCA takedowns for every major site there is. Once it becomes universally abused and inconveniences the influential, Congress will finally have to do something about it.

jjorsett:I've been wondering why people don't start issuing DMCA takedowns for every major site there is. Once it becomes universally abused and inconveniences the influential, Congress will finally have to do something about it.

Have you seen the people who inhabit Congress? Some of these guys can barely tie their own shoes. Most of what they do is listen to advisors and lobbyist friends (i.e., bribes) and vote the way their party or some other person/party of interest tells them to vote.

What will happen if Congress seeks a solution to this nonsense? Some company will lobby and make a case for how "the private sector" can adequately provide a solution, then Congress will choose that solution as a winner, and the Internet will effectively be controlled by a few large corporations that determine the content available on every server.

jjorsett:I've been wondering why people don't start issuing DMCA takedowns for every major site there is.

Because you first have to swear, under penalty of perjury, that you reasonably believe you own the content in question. One or two misfires may be forgiven, but if you started filing hundreds of them, those lazy ass DAs might see an easy criminal prosecution and finally stop doing blow off hookers long enough to file paperwork to throw you in jail.

Detinwolf:DigitalCoffee: The DMCA Notice that would have been here telling you that the original content has been removed for a DMCA violation has been itself removed due to a DMCA violation. This notice shall remain unless further violations are discovered.

Theaetetus:jjorsett: I've been wondering why people don't start issuing DMCA takedowns for every major site there is.

Because you first have to swear, under penalty of perjury, that you reasonably believe you own the content in question. One or two misfires may be forgiven, but if you started filing hundreds of them, those lazy ass DAs might see an easy criminal prosecution and finally stop doing blow off hookers long enough to file paperwork to throw you in jail.

Well, this was 1.45 million misfires.

These bots should be treated like any other malicious code out there. If I were to write some sort of program that stuck a hot curling iron up the ass of the US banking system by saying that I believed x accounts were being used fraudulently under my name and that they should be frozen, I wouldn't be able to say, "Hurrrr, I didn't know it would freeze all of those accounts" when half of the credit cards in the US stopped working. They'd throw my ass in jail with the rest of the hackers that wrote worms for MS Windows. Well, guess what: we've now got a bunch of scripts and programs claiming (falsely) that content is being used fraudulently. Someone has released production-grade code that is violating the perjury clause of the DCMA. That someone needs to be put in jail, now.

Marine1:Theaetetus: jjorsett: I've been wondering why people don't start issuing DMCA takedowns for every major site there is.

Because you first have to swear, under penalty of perjury, that you reasonably believe you own the content in question. One or two misfires may be forgiven, but if you started filing hundreds of them, those lazy ass DAs might see an easy criminal prosecution and finally stop doing blow off hookers long enough to file paperwork to throw you in jail.

Well, this was 1.45 million misfires.

No, it was one takedown, and it was correct. Read the thread before you jump to conclusions.

BoxOfBees:jjorsett: I've been wondering why people don't start issuing DMCA takedowns for every major site there is. Once it becomes universally abused and inconveniences the influential, Congress will finally have to do something about it.

Have you seen the people who inhabit Congress? Some of these guys can barely tie their own shoes. Most of what they do is listen to advisors and lobbyist friends (i.e., bribes) and vote the way their party or some other person/party of interest tells them to vote.

What will happen if Congress seeks a solution to this nonsense? Some company will lobby and make a case for how "the private sector" can adequately provide a solution, then Congress will choose that solution as a winner, and the Internet will effectively be controlled by a few large corporations that determine the content available on every server.

And that differs from the present situation of marauding DMCA takedowns how?

Theaetetus:Marine1: Theaetetus: jjorsett: I've been wondering why people don't start issuing DMCA takedowns for every major site there is.

Because you first have to swear, under penalty of perjury, that you reasonably believe you own the content in question. One or two misfires may be forgiven, but if you started filing hundreds of them, those lazy ass DAs might see an easy criminal prosecution and finally stop doing blow off hookers long enough to file paperwork to throw you in jail.

Well, this was 1.45 million misfires.

No, it was one takedown, and it was correct. Read the thread before you jump to conclusions.

It may have been correct, but the "offending" item was a 20-point questionnaire to guage a patient's risk of suicide. As far as I can tell, the blog did not include the manual or the scoring key, just the questionnaire.

I would argue that this fits under the educational fair use guidelines. Of course, the blogger probably would have gotten away with it if he'd only posted half the questions.

Jgok:It may have been correct, but the "offending" item was a 20-point questionnaire to guage a patient's risk of suicide. As far as I can tell, the blog did not include the manual or the scoring key, just the questionnaire.

I would argue that this fits under the educational fair use guidelines.

Not at all. First, what's the educational use? It's not being used in a class - it's just posted on a website, and not even a class-specific website.

But, let's go through 17 USC 107: In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

Here, the use is simply posting the work online. It's not being used for educational purposes. It may be used by those who later download it for educational purposes, but it's not currently being used at all. Furthermore, there's no commentary, no review, no criticism, nothing that shows that the "use" is at all educational.

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

The work is educational, not news reporting, but also not artistic.

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

The entire work is being used.

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

And the work is for sale, and giving it out free to the same population drastically undermines the potential market for the work.

The first one is the only arguable factor, and it's outweighed by the others.

Of course, the blogger probably would have gotten away with it if he'd only posted half the questions.